[boost] Re: Re: [Threads] Much faster try_mutex on Windows NT

From: Michael Glassford (glassfordm_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-22 15:17:15

Sorry, you're right; I read too quickly. The mutex class was changed
so that it uses a mutex if necessary (i.e., if it must be named--a
feature that isn't in the current Boost.Thread) and a critical section
otherwise. You're right that the try_mutex still uses a mutex, not a
critical section, and a solution like what you describe is probably a
good idea. However, why not call your TryCriticalInit() function using
the Boost.Thread call_once() function?

I'll work on something like this and look at timed_mutex when I move
the mutex implementation from the thread_dev to the main branch.

Mike

Adal Chiriliuc wrote:
> On Monday, March 22, 2004 Michael Glassford wrote:
>> For what it's worth, the version of Boost.Thread in the thread_dev
>> branch of CVS already uses a critical section when possible. As
time
>> allows, I'm planning to review the code in the thread_dev branch,
ask
>> for comments, finish anything that isn't finished, and move it to
the
>> main branch piece by piece. I'm currently doing this (very slowly,
>> I'm
>> afraid) for the thread_specific_ptr and related classes.
>
> This file? Sorry, but I have little CVS experience.
>
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/boost/boost/libs/thread/src/mutex.cpp
>
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/*checkout*/boost/boost/libs/thread/src/mutex.cpp?content-type=text%2Fplain&rev=1.11.4.4
>
> It does not do what I have suggested. try_mutex still uses a real
> mutex instead of a CRITICAL_SECTION on Windows NT.
>
> I did not suggest to use a CRITICAL_SECTION when not supporting the
> trylock operation, this is already done. I suggested to check at
> runtime the operating system version and choose the best option.
>
> Adal Chiriliuc
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost